dust

I think the key isn't to find one food that's high in a couple of nutrients, and another food that's high in another couple of nutrients, etc etc, but to eat various foods that are all full of various nutrients. If the bulk of your diet is veg, roots, legumes (beans, chickpeas, peanuts), nuts, and fruits, the only thing you might need dairy for is B12. But you can get it from various fortified foods, or naturally in certain mushrooms and fermented foods (tempeh). Look at milk vs spinach, for example (taken straight from Google search page, sources include USDA): Milk Total Fat 1 g 1% Saturated fat 0.6 g 3% Cholesterol 5 mg 1% Sodium 44 mg 1% Potassium 150 mg 4% Total Carbohydrate 5 g 1% Dietary fiber 0 g 0% Sugar 5 g Protein 3.4 g 6% Vitamin A 0% Vitamin C 0% Calcium 12% Iron 0% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 0% Vitamin B-12 8% Magnesium 2% Spinach Total Fat 0.4 g 0% Saturated fat 0.1 g 0% Cholesterol 0 mg 0% Sodium 79 mg 3% Potassium 558 mg 15% Total Carbohydrate 3.6 g 1% Dietary fiber 2.2 g 8% Sugar 0.4 g Protein 2.9 g 5% Vitamin A 187% Vitamin C 46% Calcium 9% Iron 15% Vitamin D 0% Vitamin B-6 10% Vitamin B-12 0% Magnesium 19% I've highlighted good things in green and lacking things in bold Per 100g spinach is almost as high in calcium as milk, and higher in all other vitamins and minerals except B12. And higher in fibre, and lower in saturated fat. And neither are high in protein compared to the amount one needs, but legumes nuts and grains are. Just a random example. My favourite food, peanuts: super high in monounsaturated fat, protein, fibre, and a few vitamins and minerals (including calcium again).

I was not offering an opinion on the matter, only pointing out that this is what the article says. Discussing Trump is bad for my health. I only commented in this topic because I was curious what mvingon meant by it all.

No! That was my point. And yours too, apparently. Forgive me, keyboard humour isn't always obvious.

Not sure I understand your point... The article you link to is claiming that those who dislike Trump -- "dumb liberals" -- are correct: that Trump is a liar and manipulator; that he won because he played on people's fears, not because he's fit for the job. Are you suggesting that the author of the article is a dumb liberal? Because it might have been more useful if you'd attempted to explain why you think he's dumb, if that's the case.

Exams are OK. I never dreaded them like some people. I suspect that the answer you have in mind to your question is that the few who control the machines, or the machines themselves, will make the decisions. I suspect that your answers to all your questions thus far have been in that vein. But I don't think we can predict that with any certainty. Technology is becoming more personal again. In centuries past, people made things themselves, or within their own family or tribe; and later on within their own village (smiths, carpenters, cobblers, tailors..). With the advent of automation, people became dependent on factories, mass-produced things, and 'tailor-made' became unusual; we still rely on things that other people designed, other people produced, other people sell us, and those 'at the top' of the production have taken a decent amount of control from government (though in theory the consumer should be in control, and is in control if he realizes the power of his dollar). But aren't we moving away from that again? We already have 3D printing, where people can (design and) produce their own objects -- major portions of guns, bicycles, drones, wheelchairs, shoes, are printable now. We have myriad options when it comes to computers, self-built computers, open source software, etc. At a certain point, if we continue to build more capable machines, might we not each have our own machines that design machines for us? Couldn't the next cyber revolution be empowering?

OK.. I assumed you were talking about the future (because that's a major theme of the topic!) but yes, many people are 'left behind' right now, I am not contradicting that. And based on human nature it's possible that this will continue in the future; but based on what technology has done for our health and longevity so far (human life expectancy is longer now than since civilization began.. though perhaps we lived longer lives before civilization..) we might be optimistic about what technology has to offer in the future, even if humans are still shitty.

Do we have to go off-grid? I don't know if it benefits any individual unless they truly desire to live in such a way. Not long ago I had daydreams of going off into the wilderness and making my own way -- I never seriously considered it, but it was a nice idea. Now, I don't see it as such a nice idea. Technology isn't always positive, but a lot of it is. Some technology is amazing and I have grown up with it; I wouldn't give it up. I don't mean smartphones, or cars, but the printed word and electronic music and peanut butter factories. Perhaps we should look towards a future in which machines are able to either cure the crippled and sick, or help them do the things they are unable to do? Why do you assume these people will be left alone?

Are you talking Terminator? Matrix? I, Robot? Heh.. I'm only half-kidding. There are many ways that automation and ever more capable robots could do more harm than good, and a lot of these have been explored in sci-fi for a long time (though they do tend towards the extreme!) I'm not sure what you're getting at specifically, though. Are you just talking about the aforementioned stuff, further automation of jobs/processes that machines can/will do better than humans? Or more complex things that might be possible in the future, with development of AI? You are an educator, aren't you? These sound an awful lot like exam questions...!

The OP video is a decent summary of what China looks like now, with some points to note that most Westerners almost certainly aren't aware of. It's not a thorough explanation of why China is destined to take over the world because, as you say, nobody can predict that. Then again, what the video and our own observations tell us is that China has already started to take over -- it's not something that could happen, but that has been happening for a while. Whether or not that continues is a different matter... Yeah. Maybe. The whole concept of economy might change over the next few decades. I have some hope that I'll live out my end days in an automated world, where robots have figured out how to fix all our environmental and social problems...

Yes, they both wrote that book on Mao. It's very anti-Mao, which is good. I think all of her books (and her!) are banned in China. I read it some 10 years ago, and Wild Swans way before that, so I don't remember too much, but they're surely both worth checking out with regard to the Cultural Revolution and China in general. And it's worth being aware that they are not dry history books -- they are saturated with feeling, as is to be expected from someone who lived through what she did. Papayapple brings up a good point: one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, Daoism has less of a hold in China today is because of Mao.

Yes, for sure, it is all embedded. From what you've said so far it sounds like you have much experience with China yourself, and I'm sure your impression is quite correct. There are variations on the phrase, 以佛治心、以道治身、以儒治世 -- govern the mind with Buddhism, the body with Daoism, the world with Confucianism 以儒治国，以道治身，以佛治心 -- govern the state with Confucianism, the body with Daoism, the mind with Buddhism etc Use Buddhism to heal the soul, Daoism to heal the body and direct action (or non-action!), and Confucianism to structure society and the family. Or something like that. The way I have experienced it though.. well, look at Christianity in the UK or some other Western nation. Modern Britain evolved from centuries of Catholicism and Anglicanism, and at this point it's impossible to completely separate and identify ancient religious influence from our modern ethical values and political system and how society has developed etc. But the majority of "native" Britons do not truly believe in Christianity anymore. Many are atheist or agnostic, and even those who claim to be Christian don't usually go to church, most have never read the Bible, etc. So while the UK is informed in many ways by Christian influence, Christianity doesn't actually play a direct role in modern life. Christmas is happening right now, and though I am with family and it's a happy 'festive' time, I don't know anyone younger than 80 who's been to church. In China, with Taoism, the modern role in everyday life is even less. Way fewer Chinese believe/practice Taoism in any form compared to British people believing in Christianity. Taoism has influenced China in many fundamental ways through history, but at this time it's impossible to separate and identify that influence, so we can't say for sure how much is Taoist and how much is other. Same with Buddhism, really -- most people who claim to be Buddhist have not got the first idea what that means, they just go and burn incense at temple sometimes. If you asked them about the Four Noble Truths, I think most would ask you what that is. So how are they using Buddhism to govern the mind, and Daoism for the body, or anything else? They are not, not really. As far as idioms / 'proverbs' in China.. most are learned by rote. I don't think most people are aware of where any of them come from.

In my 30s. I'm not one who believes in the absolute wisdom of age, or stupidity of youth -- some people get to 90 still believing the most foolish things, and some teenagers are as wise as can be, with a lifetime's experience already. At best I'm average in wisdom, but my experience & examination of being sociable vs being solitary is pretty substantial by now! But I cannot predict the future. You said in the OP, "I cannot count the amount of times I put on a fake smile during a day, or the amount of times I have to strain my throat to sound gentle and polite, only for it to come out sounding phony anyway. It’s emotionally painful for me to lie like this." I'm curious, exactly how phony do you think you sound? How fake is your fake smile? Can you find a reason to smile for real? Maybe it's nice weather outside, or you're looking forward to lunch, or you just saw a pretty lady, etc -- can't you use some positive feeling to put on a genuine smile? It's not directly aimed at the other person, you're not smiling because you love smiling at them, but neither is it a lie. You feel good about something, and you smile. As a fellow antisocialite... I've found that if I manage a genuine smile at the right moment, and aim it at someone else, they'll be taken in a little by it, and they might even smile back. And some will scowl and think I'm crazy...but that's cool. It's nice to see people smile. Anyway, sounds like you've had some good experiences recently.

That's good. Because I was going to say... whether or not you find what I said useful, I strongly urge that you take note of what Brian and Luke said. And roger. My post by itself could be a recipe for real loneliness. And I'm still young, and have no idea what my current take on things might lead to in later years. So I don't want anything I say to lead, even in a tiny way, to anyone else becoming lonelier. Explore that craving for companionship, but do it in a way that makes you comfortable.

In my opinion.. each of us has our social limit, and trying to reach beyond it probably isn't helpful. Where I feel I can relate to you... I've always hated being in a group of people -- anything more than 3. Even with 4 or 5 people who I know and like, after 5 minutes I long for solitude. And I've only recently -- the last 2-3 years -- begun to accept it, to realize that it's OK to not be extroverted and sociable. People who judge me poorly for it can fuck off. I have just a few people I'm genuinely comfortable being around... and I don't even want to see them very often, and that's OK. There are some wonderful people out there who completely accept it, and are happy to be friends on my antisocial terms (though I have no idea why!). These days the way I manage being in a group of 3-4, to stay in touch with my closer friends, is to do something enjoyable and energy-intensive with them -- bouldering is the activity of choice now. And that way, if it's a larger group, or there are people I don't know, I don't need to talk to everyone -- just climb and pick my moments. And if we find something to talk about, that's good, and if not it doesn't matter. Also hiking, various games, etc. Where you and I certainly differ is in our approach to those we don't feel comfortable around. You don't have to smile at people! You don't have to force politeness. Don't be obnoxious, but don't worry about "lying" to people by not acting as if you care. If it seems to you like most people are friendly and smiley and happy all the time, it's mostly an illusion. People who smile all the time are either stupid or lying. You neither have to lie to people about how much you like them nor tell them outright that you don't like them, and you definitely don't need to feel guilty about any of it.

I'm going to play the pessimist now because what you've said is about as optimistic as can be! (I like it, but it is optimistic no?) People are being freed from repetitive, time consuming, soul-destroying tasks as we speak. It's been happening for the last few thousand years, really, and sped up greatly at the Industrial Revolution, the likes of which is still happening in different forms around the world. And our current digital revolution is speeding things up even more. Eventually, it seems, robots will be able to do everything. But one of the reasons I posted this topic, ask the question, is that I'm not confident that humanity is capable of freeing itself even when the majority of people theoretically have the means to live without worry. There will still be nations, religions, cultures, separating people from each other. Robot taskforce won't put an end to conflict and greed. I mean, the whole conversation assumes that we're not all dead from war by 2050! People are not good at self-direction. All through history, we've had dictators -- lords, emperors, kings, caesars, fuhrers -- and every reason to say "No, we want to do it ourselves." But ambitious monsters always find their way to the top, and the collective fool always finds a way to accept servitude. When giants like Amazon and Alibaba are already there, monitoring everything we do and the majority accepting their omniscience without question, how can we believe that it won't continue like this? When they benefit so much from having a biased economic structure, why would they let it go? Won't it take some sort of revolution? Indeed. As you're aware by now, I do not actually fit in at TDB in most respects (I'm no Daoist, or Buddhist, or occultist; I've lost my qigong and taiji practice; I vehemently disagree with the philosophy and politics of many members; etc). But one reason I've remained, I think, is a couple of common threads linking most members. One general thread is that we're all a bit different -- there's no average Joe Starbucks on here; if I walked into the city right now, I'd find 50 trend-following football fans and hipsters and fashionistas and soccer moms before anyone who'd be found dead browsing The Dao Bums. A more specific thread on TDB is a general mistrust of (political) authority. Even with you and Karl and various others with whom I've had fundamental disagreements about politics, I think we share a general wariness of our governments and a feeling that the status quo is undesirable. (Let me know if I'm wrong on that.) But most people are not so wary. I don't see that most people will ever choose not to be cattle.

How would you suggest it proceeds, though? If the technology is inevitable, how to prepare for the fact that many jobs will become obsolete, and probably at a faster rate than we can invent new ones? It is certainly absurd. And it's not just people going abroad to take advantage who are taking advantage. Whether we like it or not, we all benefit from the global slave economy, wherever we are. Those of us using computers, with free time to discuss things like this online, are well off compared to a majority of people, especially those who make the things we buy imported from farms and factories around the world. And so unless we make our own clothes and grow our own food and build our own tech, we're contributing, no? But with the advent of further technologies, when at some point in the future drivers, postmen, factory workers, shop workers, journalists, receptionists, secretaries, data enterers, some doctors and teachers and accountants, and various other modern job descriptions are better filled with computers or robots or AI or whatever, a couple of things should happen: (1) people will create new jobs (that serve no necessary purpose [there are already loads of these, but we'll see a lot more]) and (2) in optimistic theory, the robot taskforce will be so efficient and productive that we'll no longer need to worry about a "minimum wage": distribution of food and clothes and education and healthcare will no longer be something to worry about. Many people will happily sit in their armchairs and eat themselves to death. Others will have much more freedom to choose a career, guaranteed a certain amount of comfort. Why should anyone, then, have to worry about money? An economy is just 2 or more people exchanging goods and services. If, at some point, most people no longer have any true need to have an occupation, the economy no longer exists. No goods or services are shared: the robots do the work, and people eat and shit. I'm trying to be optimistic. Talking out of my arse, but it's all possible, no?

/

I really don't know what role Daoism plays in modern China. Those claiming to be Taoist only make up a very small percentage of the population. Though Taoism is so entwined with Buddhism and everything else, ancestor worship and other folky stuff, so anyone who practices anything "from outside" (Christianity Islam Hinduism Judaism etc) has some element of Taoism in their worship/practice. But I don't think most people have even looked into it. On the surface, in Beijing, I was aware of some popular DDJ quotes, a general awareness among people that Laozi is an important figure in Chinese history, a lot of people practicing taiji, and a lot of folk medicine advice which sometimes might be traced back in some way to some Taoist stuff...so it certainly pervades the culture superficially. But only the occasional person has looked deeper into Daoism and could speak about it beyond Laozi, I think. None of my Chinese friends are Daoist, they don't visit Daoist temples (except maybe as tourists), they don't study any Daoist texts, they don't do qigong, etc. One of the first things I was taught at uni, and one of the first things an older Chinese will mention in any discussion about China, is the role of Confucianism on family and society structure. Filial piety and all that stuff gets tossed around all the time. And in my experience asking people 你信什么？ they're way more likely to say 我信佛 than anything else. I can't speak for all of China, though

I'm not really sure what this topic is actually all about, but considering all the bollocks that gets discussed on a daily basis on TDB -- energy blasting and immortality and magic and Donald Trump and whatever -- I think one or two jokes at the OP's expense would have sufficed.

In my experience, the average Han has no real feeling of superiority over the ethnic minorities of China. I might be wrong but the general perception is that it is China that is superior, including its precious 56. Of course there are those who are racist, like there are anywhere, but most laobaixing (average joes) mostly bother with feeling superior to non-Chinese. Otherwise, I tend to agree with him. Certainly it's what I was taught -- China is China. Historical Chinese culture is embedded in the modern culture. Even the dynastic system didn't go anywhere -- just changed its face. And it's true that many in the West don't quite understand. It's a problem, in my opinion. By and large, the Chinese accept their culture without any examination. Culture should be periodically examined and modified. Parts that do not work should be destroyed. But this kind of modification cannot happen in a 'civilization state'. They are bound to the wheel.

Hako Yamasaki - Tobimasu 山崎ハコ - 飛・び・ま・す (1975) superdope

Don't forget: dye before you die!

Heh. Could be. The way I see it, society has always been structured around a few elites (whether of 'noble' birth, superior business acumen, willingness to do anything to make money, etc) who amass a majority of the wealth and leave a majority of the people to their scraps, to live in relative discomfort (slavery, or poverty, or just a relatively poor working class). It's still happening -- the capacity of companies like Amazon to amass all this wealth and power is nothing new. But if society wants to get ahead of the coming trend (and it is going to happen, whether we want it to or not), isn't the best way of ensuring that quality of life continues to improve for most people to ensure that nobody gets left behind economically because there is literally nothing for them to do? There are still plenty of things for people to do now. If we're sensible we look ahead and we don't plan on retail as a lifelong career choice, perhaps -- we look at computing, or healthcare, or whatever. But at some point most career paths that now exist won't be needed at all...

Taking the word at face value, and in historical context, a warrior is a brave and experienced soldier. To me, if you are going to use the word 'warrior', you are talking about someone who fights -- in real danger, against others, for their life and probably the lives of others. If war isn't directly involved, the word doesn't apply. Not like these UFC morons running around getting paid big money to punch each other and calling themselves warriors. One can have the warrior mindset, or a warrior's spirit, and many have the potential to be a warrior, but most people are not warriors and never will be. That being said, I think the two paths -- spirituality and war -- can be found in the same person. A genuine warrior, with his direct experience of death and deep understanding of his own capacity for action, surely has a great potential for enlightenment.. but an equally great potential for PSTD and a wasted life.

Yes, some (if not all) of those yoga poses are excellent. I've had incredibly tight hips for a long time and am just starting to loosen them up to a useful point. Also look into loaded stretching (adding extra weight to pull you deeper into difficult streches), and light ballistic stretching (very light pulsing at the end range of the stretch). My favourite stretches for the hips that haven't been mentioned yet: Cobbler pose with weight: Not sure if tailor's and cobbler's pose are the same thing? Anyway, this stretches the adductors (inner thigh). Sit in cobbler's pose against the wall as seen in video below, but instead of pushing with your arms use weights. Put a weight on each knee (I use 20kg on each now, but started lighter with 10kg and have worked up) and gently lift weights up and down (keeping them in place on the knees with your hands). After 10 reps up-down, hold at the bottom position and breathe out, relaxing into the stretch. Squats: deep squats, with or without weight. Look up Ido Portal's squat routine 2.0 on YouTube. Weighted toe touches / Jefferson curls: basically you stand and bend forward to touch the ground, but with a weight in your hands. Focus on keeping a straight back and hinging at the hip, then when you have gone as far as you can with a straight back, start rounding the back and getting your hands as close as possible to the ground (or if you can get them easily to the ground, stand on something so you can go deeper). This is primarily a hamstring stretch but does affect various other muscles, plus flexible hams are important for all-round hip health. Side and front splits: Basically, do the splits. Relax into it, hold for 30-60 secs, rest for 3-4 mins, repeat. For side splits, use a chair or something stable to hold onto in front. Same with front splits: have a stable object on either side of you and gradually lower yourself forwards into the splits, hold, rest, repeat.